Can someone explain why Republicans give much more to charity when liberals are....

[kaz]

supposed to be so sensitive.

I assume this is tongue in cheek as the answer is obvious. Liberals believe someone should do something. Conservatives and libertarians believe they should do something...

 

[editec]

I content that ABC cannot know the answer to this question.

PERHAPS one might arrive at this conclusion by studying the pattern of TAX WRITE OFFS?

Only I do not remember ever having to note my political affiliation when submitting my tax returns, so that seems unlikely.

Where are they getting the stats to make this claim?

Anybody know, for sure?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I was always of the mind that charity begins at home.

Not many of us have our own houses in order and that IMHO should be everyone's first priority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The irony here?

Conservatives tell us over and over again that giving 'handouts' to the poor/less wealthy/needy etc. is a BAD thing because it discourages them from getting off their asses and taking care of themselves, etc., etc.,

then they turn around - like in this thread - and want to claim credit for doing more of just that than liberals do.

What?!

 

[kaz]

The irony here?

Conservatives tell us over and over again that giving 'handouts' to the poor/less wealthy/needy etc. is a BAD thing because it discourages them from getting off their asses and taking care of themselves, etc., etc.,

then they turn around - like in this thread - and want to claim credit for doing more of just that than liberals do.

What?!

In fairness, I suppose that's the limit of your ability to comprehend. What conservatives/libertarians believe is that:

- You give away your money, not someone else's

- You don't give away money through an unaccountable charity as government does, you give it to charities that are dependent on your future gifts and therefore accountable to you

- You give away money in a way that helps them through the short term and sets them up to improve their lives through their own efforts, not in a way that disincents them by merely fostering dependency

Liberals fail in all three. But if you want to call that not believing in charity, what can I say, you don't get it and probably never will.

 

[Annie]

The irony here?

Conservatives tell us over and over again that giving 'handouts' to the poor/less wealthy/needy etc. is a BAD thing because it discourages them from getting off their asses and taking care of themselves, etc., etc.,

then they turn around - like in this thread - and want to claim credit for doing more of just that than liberals do.

What?!

No sir, you don't see most conservatives saying what you claim. What is being said is that the government is not the most efficient way of getting help where it's needed.

Nor is it the best way to address problems that those needing help may have. Go to any unemployment office, where people are collecting not from the dole, (well until all these extensions), but from money they put in. Job help? LOL! Same things that can be found online. Computers for help? No printers, scanners, etc. One is much better off going to the local Junior college and using their facilities, for little or no cost. (If you live in the county you are entitled to library privileges).

Actually the churches around here have done a very good job with helping those with less than college education find jobs, through community and the churches themselves.

Same with those needing food, they not only eat today, but have resources there for job skills, clothes for interviews, role playing interviews, how to make a resume and/or fill out an application. Connections for child care, often cooperative.

The Salvation Army helps those with addictions and the community at large in times of disaster. They have always feed and housed the homeless.

Contrary to what the left claims, the right is not Hobbesian, rather much more respectful of the individual, even those down at a point in time. They need help today and tomorrow will look better through a helping hand and their own efforts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The irony here?

Conservatives tell us over and over again that giving 'handouts' to the poor/less wealthy/needy etc. is a BAD thing because it discourages them from getting off their asses and taking care of themselves, etc., etc.,

then they turn around - like in this thread - and want to claim credit for doing more of just that than liberals do.

What?!

No sir, you don't see most conservatives saying what you claim. .

I do around here. We'll see how many conservatives here step up and say that poverty programs are a good thing and do not discourage anyone in the way I described.

 

[AquaAthena]

supposed to be so sensitive.

Most Republicans have a sense of charity and want to help others. They give from their hearts, as do many Democrats but few hard Lefters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The irony here?

Conservatives tell us over and over again that giving 'handouts' to the poor/less wealthy/needy etc. is a BAD thing because it discourages them from getting off their asses and taking care of themselves, etc., etc.,

then they turn around - like in this thread - and want to claim credit for doing more of just that than liberals do.

What?!

In fairness, I suppose that's the limit of your ability to comprehend. What conservatives/libertarians believe is that:

- You give away your money, not someone else's

- You don't give away money through an unaccountable charity as government does, you give it to charities that are dependent on your future gifts and therefore accountable to you

- You give away money in a way that helps them through the short term and sets them up to improve their lives through their own efforts, not in a way that disincents them by merely fostering dependency

Liberals fail in all three. But if you want to call that not believing in charity, what can I say, you don't get it and probably never will.

The government is unaccountable? Then what is the purpose of elections?

 

[Agit8r]

My old-roommate in Brooklyn (and none of us had or have much money), who is a churchgoer, essentially described it to me as such, and from his perception, seemed to have pretty good luck with it. He would give money, and then start finding money everyday on the ground randomly, or, good things would just 'happen' to him. He found that the more have gave, the better his luck became. Whether this is just perception I don't know, but the point of the story is that, it is his understanding that the more he gives, the more he will recieve. That God is like a giant cosmic ATM machine. That is how many people see it. HOw is my concept messed up? However it was 'meant' to be, doesn't matter. This is how it is sold and how people see it who take part in it.

I understand in olden times it was a tenth of your income, but today, it has taken a more subtle more.

That isn't called a church. It is a cargo cult

 

[asterism]

Liberals prefer to give YOUR money to the poor.

No, liberals support policies which force working Americans to give their money to other liberals in government, take their generous cut, and then give the scraps to the poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

supposed to be so sensitive.

Most Republicans have a sense of charity and want to help others. They give from their hearts, as do many Democrats but few hard Lefters.

And how would you know any of that? Why do you waste board space with idiocy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The irony here?

Conservatives tell us over and over again that giving 'handouts' to the poor/less wealthy/needy etc. is a BAD thing because it discourages them from getting off their asses and taking care of themselves, etc., etc.,

then they turn around - like in this thread - and want to claim credit for doing more of just that than liberals do.

What?!

In fairness, I suppose that's the limit of your ability to comprehend. What conservatives/libertarians believe is that:

- You give away your money, not someone else's

- You don't give away money through an unaccountable charity as government does, you give it to charities that are dependent on your future gifts and therefore accountable to you

- You give away money in a way that helps them through the short term and sets them up to improve their lives through their own efforts, not in a way that disincents them by merely fostering dependency

Liberals fail in all three. But if you want to call that not believing in charity, what can I say, you don't get it and probably never will.

So...according your proclamations here,

a Conservative would not give money to a church that ran a soup kitchen, if that church allowed its kitchen to serve anyone anytime, no questions asked,

because there might be people coming there beyond the 'short term' who were being disincentivized and who had developed a dependency.

Only a church that imposed strict limits on the people who came to their soup kitchen deserves contributions,

according to the wisdom of Conservatism.

lol Right!!!!

 

[Annie]

The irony here?

Conservatives tell us over and over again that giving 'handouts' to the poor/less wealthy/needy etc. is a BAD thing because it discourages them from getting off their asses and taking care of themselves, etc., etc.,

then they turn around - like in this thread - and want to claim credit for doing more of just that than liberals do.

What?!

No sir, you don't see most conservatives saying what you claim. .

I do around here. We'll see how many conservatives here step up and say that poverty programs are a good thing and do not discourage anyone in the way I described.

private or public. See the public haven't been doing a good job, other than causing generational poverty. Not a good family legacy, do you think?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can someone explain why Republicans give much more to charity when liberals are....

Sure. Republicans give to churches.

Democrats give to universities and create funds for scholarships. They will will help the disadvantaged to learn skills and get "real" jobs. None of those things are counted as "charity".

Republicans will dig out some old can of creamed corn 5 years old out of the pantry, give it to the church and feel good they "gave" so much. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, TEACH a man to fish and he will feed his family.

It's a difference in philosophy. You can see it in the way Republicans feel helping your fellow American is nasty socialism, but giving him that old, shitty can of creamed corn is "gawdly".

Do you have anything to back that up, or is it your typical partisan bullshit?

Why didn't you ask the OP that?

Maybe because the OP is conservative and dean is liberal??

That would make you a partisan hack wouldn't it?

Or it could be because the OP made a complete idiot of himself, and really did not need my help. It is nice to see someone defending rdean though, does that mean you are as stupid as he is, or do you actually think he has a point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The study this perspective is based on is like so many hokey studies, it found what it wanted to find, nothing new there. How could one prove this is valid, and how do people define themselves? It's one of those holier than thou BS perspectives. Feel good with no effort, but excuse yourself from examining who does good?

Funny thing, I thought this was based on the OP being an idiot. did he actually find a study that backed him up?

Religious people, be they conservative or liberal, tend to be more generous on the whole as that is a significant aspect of their life and of their values. Generosity though, runs across any barrier you can make up and tends to be personal rather than ideological. My mom, liberal with the exception of abortion, would give you her last cent.

That I agree with 100%. Couple that with the fact that most people associate religion with being conservative and you understand why people think conservatives out give liberals.

Consider too that religious conservatives, in a sort of self congratulatory piety, contribute to churches that build huge Babel like edifices where they can sing their own praises. Look at the televangelists and you realize indulgences have returned, but this time they sparkle like a mass celebration of privilege. In the end what has done more good, Social Security or religious offerings which usually include salvation for the giver? When the so called charity monies are used to defeat the rights of other citizens, as they did in proposition 8, or enter into the political sphere, then if that is charity, you can keep your good work.

Just because televangelists misuse donations that does not mean that the people that give to them are insincere. Televangelists are many things, but conservative is not one of them, at least not inside.

But Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army do good things, many good things. So while not all is cynical or expectant giving, pretending the charity is not motivated by selfish goals is off base as well.

What? Neither the Salvation Army, nor Catholic Charities, is selfish. I think your attempt at being cynical is making you look foolish.

Personally, with the exception of the religious, all my friends and acquaintances who would classify themselves as conservative are less generous than the more liberal person. This makes sense to them, as they see their position as a reward or as expected. Conservatives rarely mention the hierarchical aspect of their ideology.

Or, maybe, they do not have a hierarchical ideology. Maybe you ideology is making you see things that are not there.

My aunt who was a sister of charity, for many years in some of the worst neighborhoods, would tell us that without big business gifts they could not carry on, helping others just has low appeal, helping yourself is another story. "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara

There you go with quotes again. Are you ever going to learn to think for yourself? If you ever do it you might be able to speak from your own experience, and not have to attempt to look wise by quoting others.

 

[newpolitics]

and Che Guevara is the hero of all the left, because I once met one wearing the image and he told me that is what real liberals believe. So now I know.

This board isn't about what a tithe is. I know what it is now that I just read about it, you know, so who gives a shit? Move on!

And yet, while you hadn't a clue, you used your big ole brush so mightily. BTW, you don't need to inform me what the board is or isn't about.

Take it easy miss obnacious. My point was using a real life case, which does have some validity, at least as valid as the OP, which lays no facts or links to back-up what it claims.

 

[MikeK]

supposed to be so sensitive.

If that is in fact true, maybe it's because they have more money. A lot more money.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because, in general, liberals believe in outsourcing "charity" to the government. Conservatives, in general, believe that have a duty to God and our fellow man to do charity as individuals.

 

[Annie]

This board isn't about what a tithe is. I know what it is now that I just read about it, you know, so who gives a shit? Move on!

And yet, while you hadn't a clue, you used your big ole brush so mightily. BTW, you don't need to inform me what the board is or isn't about.

Take it easy miss obnacious. My point was using a real life case, which does have some validity, at least as valid as the OP, which lays no facts or links to back-up what it claims.

I'm not the obnoxious one here, it's yourself. Your points were made up of whole cloth, perhaps that of your roommate, but you adopted the cloth. Thus hardly valid, against anything. While not stated in the OP, one source for the claim was made on the first page, by a 'liberal' who also attempted to show areas of his disagreement-that at least is a valid attempt to address the point.